Electoral Reform a Must for Real Democracy in Canada.

[kairos]

Yet you claimed that you don't care if your representative actually supports laws that you support.

I made no such claim. You're making up what I said.

Your claims about me and my positions are consistently based on nothing more than thin air.

[Mighty AC]

Tim, what features of FPTP cause you to prefer it?

[TimG]

Tim, what features of FPTP cause you to prefer it?

With FPTP parties are forced to appeal to the broad middle of the political spectrum in order to have any hope of getting power. This ensures that governments are generally moderate no matter what the ideological stripe of the party. This means that the views of the moderate majority will be a huge factor in any policy decisions even if a large chunk of that moderate majority did not vote for the party currently in power.

A PR-like system splits this moderate majority into competing blocks that are supported by ideological extremists. This results in policies that appeal to the ideological extremists rather than the moderate majority.

IOW: FPTP means government for the majority. PR systems means government for the minority.

In a fantasy world where the two big parties at the center always formed coalitions a PR system could provide government for the majority. But it never works that way in practice because there always needs to be a 'loyal opposition' for government to work effectively.

Edited March 6, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

I don't share your view of the results. I have a problem with the cycle of ideologies scrapping the old and installing their vision. I don't see that as a balance but rather a sequence of minority rule.

How much does this happen ?

Initially when you wrote that, I came up with a counter example but then I came up with an example where this does happen too.

The example I was thinking that supports your argument is Environmental Policy, specifically Kyoto support. The Liberals were behind it, and the Conservatives not.

But I also feel that issues of that magnitude are not well solved by democracies anyway. Look at the US where there is arguably more input into the political process ... congress, the senate etc.

And the environment is one issue where endless compromise is not what is needed. China, a dictatorship, is in a far better position to make real change on this issue.

Since, FPTP prevents half of the country from creating representation, the general public has no real incentive to perform due diligence. FPTP is an incubator of apathy.

You have to explain how FPTP causes apathy, as I don't see Italy or the other countries having a different view of their governments. I'm pretty sure you would enrage any conservative in this country by getting rid of the only system that gives them (occasional) majority rule. All you would do by replacing FPTP is get the 5-10% Green Party voters excited at the expense of the 30% of conservative supporters.

[jacee]

You have to explain how FPTP causes apathy, as I don't see Italy or the other countries having a different view of their governments. I'm pretty sure you would enrage any conservative in this country by getting rid of the only system that gives them (occasional) majority rule. All you would do by replacing FPTP is get the 5-10% Green Party voters excited at the expense of the 30% of conservative supporters.

30% of the 55% who vote ...

Harper's 'majority' represents the votes of about 16% of the population.

Over 80% of us did not consent to the ideological steamroller.

His MP's don't even represent the views of the constituents who voted for them, but only the 'party line', bobbing up and down on command, and parroting the party line when they are allowed to speak to the media at all.

He evades consultation with any but ideological partners, has vindictive hissy fits and attacks any who have public influence to oppose the steamroller, and shows contempt for the vast majority of Canadians and for democratic process itself.

This tyranny of the richest 15% arose from the current FPTP system, vulnerable as it is to manipulations.

Point being ... 30%? No, the Harper government doesn't represent 30% of Canadians because half of us are too disillusioned by ideological party line backroom politics and corruption to favour the wealthy that WE DON'T BOTHER TO VOTE.

A broader range of grassroots choices and the ability to put them in seats in the Commons would re-engage many Canadians in democratic processes and grassroots visioning.

[TimG]

Over 80% of us did not consent to the ideological steamroller.

Except the Harper goverment is *not* an ideological steamroller. Most of the policies are boring, middle of the road stuff that the majority supports.

The 'ideological steamroller' meme is largely nonsense dreamed up by ideological partisans who want to see the Harper government replaced with one that actually is ideologically motivated. However, given the nature of the system it is unlikely that any replacement government would be that much different.

Edited March 7, 2013 by TimG

[jacee]

However, given the nature of the system it is unlikely that any replacement government would be that much different.

That's the point.

The 'nature of the system' needs a makeover.

[TimG]

The 'nature of the system' needs a makeover.

Why? Because it produces moderate governments that target the interests of the majority? I see that as a huge asset.

[Michael Hardner]

jacee, on 06 Mar 2013 - 19:08, said:

30% of the 55% who vote ...

Your post seems to negate the idea that 30% of voters, or of Canadians are Conservative by nature. Do you think that Conservatives all vote, basically, and non-Conservatives stay home ?

[ReeferMadness]

Yes - the theoretical math says that if there are 30 M people in Canada, then my vote should have exactly one thirty-millionth of an impact on the overall results.

It's theoretical because the actual impact of making this happen in Canada is unknown. What we do know is that majorities would be a rarity, conservatives would have far less power and Quebec wouldn't be able to elect a party like the BQ in numbers they had in the past.

There is nothing theoretical except your extreme example. The math is proven, the systems have proven themselves elsewhere.

[ReeferMadness]

It's not a matter of "corruption" but of parties working in their own best

interest. That is the goal of a political party: to gain and keep power.

Parties don't care about the country they try to take power over, nor

about ethics except insofar as they must comply with legal requirements

in order to maintain an aura of legitimacy.

Parties working in their own interest colluding to undermine the goals of the system sounds like corruption to me. Corruption has become so commonplace people don't even recognize it anymore.

[Michael Hardner]

There is nothing theoretical except your extreme example. The math is proven, the systems have proven themselves elsewhere.

I don't think it's an extreme example, since it actually happened only a few years ago. Many of the BQ election results seem to work equally well, if you prefer.

Edited to add: The 'elsewhere' examples wouldn't have had a Quebec, though. Again, elegant math but bad practical application.

[OttawaNow]

Election Resources on the Internet:
Federal Elections in Canada - Elections to the House of Commons

http://electionresources.org/ca/

[hitops]

No actually I'm fine, I share my opinion, your are clearly prone to being obtuse. As stated your opening statements were either intentional deception or out of touch with the real world. Have your pick. You are just denying the fallacy of your opening statements, and offer absolutely nothing to back that up. It comes off as nothing more than a scarecrow.

I sincerely doubt you are a post doc academic, an academic would have backed up their statements rather than whining.

Academics don't start discussions by responding with "I can only suspect you are from some sheltered backwater....".

Whether you believe I work in academia or not......it's very clear you don't.

Edited March 7, 2013 by hitops

[hitops]

PR decreases the lock-step party line loyalty because more parties are in the House and major parties have to form alliances with reps they can't threaten and order around.

PR specifically breaks the grip of of 'lock-step' party line imposed on all Canadians by false majority governments fulfilling corporate agendas.

I think the drawbacks regarding PR have been well stated. As noted by others, while it sounds reasonable that people might be more appropriately represented by party, it also seems self-evident that many more of the MP's would be directly dependent on the party, rather than the votes for their placement in the house. This increases the importance and scope of the party rather than the MP.

This is not true. Most people vote along party lines. Many don't even know who their local representatives are. Building constituencies based exclusively on geography makes perfect sense - assuming that you live in the 1700's.

Very few MP's care who most of their constituents are. They have much more to fear from their leaders and the party's unelected hangers-on than from the electorate. Most people vote along party lines and if you represent the right party, you win!!

Democracy implies no such thing. Democracy is, in fact rule by the people. Since self-rule is commonly thought to be unfeasible, representative democracy (where someone else theoretically represents you) is in place.

I have uncommon political views and as such, my views are often entirely unrepresented. There is nothing inherently wrong with that - not all views can be represented. However, when you have a system where most of the people find themselves represented only in theory (that is, their local representative is opposed to most of their views), democracy becomes dysfunctional.

The argument against regional representative as being old fashioned misses the point. It's not that people in one region think alike, it is the fact that regional economics are usually the most important, and whatever is good for the region in general is economically beneficial to everyone in that region. A florist doesn't care about the tar sands per se, but she does care that more money coming in to the area means more flowers sold. Or she believes that pollution is bad for flowers, or whatever.

Democracy certainly does imply consenting to rule by some for majority, meaning you don't always get what you want. The leading theories on why mid-east nations go into chaos in power vacuums are largely based on the fact they have no civil society. In the west we have hundreds of years of civil society predating our central governments, where people were part of groups, clubs, lodges etc and got used to the fact that voting doesn't mean you get what you want. If you don't like the CPC, using the current as example, but that's what you get, that doesn't mean you don't live a democracy, it just means a lot of other people who do like the CPC live in that democracy with you.

In every conceivable form of elections, the majority of people will find themselves opposed to many or all of the views of their representative. That occurs even when the rep you vote for wins, as you may differ with them on many things as well. Going away from FPTP does not solve that problem.

Edited March 7, 2013 by hitops

[eyeball]

The point, to my mind, is efficiency and breadth/depth of representation are balanced off against each other to produce a RESULT. Like any complex machine, there are lots of possible outcomes and there are lots of reasons it may or may not work.

So, we're mostly in agreement there. What I disagree with is that the RESULT of our system proves that change needs to happen: the laws and policies of our land are an incredible balance of different forces and I can't imagine how that could be better, except by more due diligence on the part of the public through our existing system.

How in the hell are we supposed to do that when just about everything the system does is such an enormous secret?

I'm for senate reform, parliamentary reform, electoral reform, separation...virtually anything that might cause a vibration or ripple would be nice for a change. But that said, no system we'll devise will ever function properly so long as secrecy and the avoidance of transparency remain such a glaring fixture and feature of our governance.

[shortlived]

Your post seems to negate the idea that 30% of voters, or of Canadians are Conservative by nature. Do you think that Conservatives all vote, basically, and non-Conservatives stay home ?

30% shouldn't rule the other 70%

[TimG]

30% shouldn't rule the other 70%

This statement presumes that people who did not vote for the government are not satisfied with many, if not most, of the policies of the government. This is not a valid presumption. Governments, once elected, represent all citizens. Edited March 7, 2013 by TimG

[shortlived]

This statement presumes that people who did not vote for the government are not satisfied with many, if not most, of the policies of the government. This is not a valid presumption. Governments, once elected, represent all citizens.

where is the rabbit?

You may need to bend over more.

or to paraphrase incase I need to for you.

No, no they don't.

Edited March 7, 2013 by shortlived

[Michael Hardner]

30% shouldn't rule the other 70%

No - it's more like "30% should only rule the country about 30% of the time".

It doesn't always happen - ie. the Greens will not rule 10% of the time - but again the result is what needs to be balanced here, not the seat result but the policy and governmental result.

[Michael Hardner]

How in the hell are we supposed to do that when just about everything the system does is such an enormous secret?

The information is often there, but people do not use the system to get the information and facilitate the proper management of governance.

I'm for senate reform, parliamentary reform, electoral reform, separation...virtually anything that might cause a vibration or ripple would be nice for a change. But that said, no system we'll devise will ever function properly so long as secrecy and the avoidance of transparency remain such a glaring fixture and feature of our governance.

I would like to see people using the information we have first, before demanding more. Not to say that there aren't too many secrets but we don't use the information we have properly.

[eyeball]

Whose this we you're talking about are you a muzzled scientist by any chance?

We can't use the information we don't have.

[TimG]

Whose this we you're talking about are you a muzzled scientist by any chance?

Yes - the lefty cbc loves to flog this meme but the real question is: why do paid employees of the government expect to be able to talk to press about their work any time they want? How many employees of private companies have that privilege?

[eyeball]

So you're saying the government is a private enterprise? I kind of suspected that already.

[kairos]

I think the drawbacks regarding PR have been well stated. As noted by

others, while it sounds reasonable that people might be more

appropriately represented by party, it also seems self-evident that many

more of the MP's would be directly dependent on the party, rather than

the votes for their placement in the house. This increases the

importance and scope of the party rather than the MP.

I pointed out numerous times on this thread how this could be fixed. Ridings are still used, but only the people who received the most votes in their ridings go to Ottawa. The proportional numbers determine the number of seats, then the people sent are those who received the most from their ridings.